Site Moving

This site has moved to a new location, The Madman Speaks.

I'll continue to cross-post initial article excerpts here, but the main articles will be located on the new site.

Political History

For some inexplicable reason, more and more frequently I have been seeing reference to the Declaration of Independence as some sort of evidence that America is a Christian nation. What better day than the 4th of July to address this document and its historical role in our government.

Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence has absolutely no legal weight in American law. Our law is founded, first and foremost, on the U.S. Constitution. This is clearly articulated in the Constitution, in Article VI, in what is known as "the supremacy clause."

Continue reading . . .

Mocking God?

Yes, I mock your god, because your god is a false god. Yes, YOUR god.

Your "truth" is self-delusion. You reject any rationale that leads to a contrary conclusion that the bible may not be truth and that god may not exist.

Your "love" is a coin into the vending machine of redemption. The purpose of "saving souls" is to save yourself.

Your god is the stillborn idea of a primitive mind. Insofar as primitive minds could not understand the workings of the natural world, the explanation of a mythical god was sufficient to assuage the human fear of the unknown.

Your god is a comical, simplistic caricature of the worst aspects of human nature. This is the god that embodies pettiness, egotism, pride, and jealousy by reserving his most vengeful wrath for those who don't believe in him or would speak ill of him. This is the god that demands daily worship. This is the god that demands offerings. This is the god that is greedy to want more souls, more belief, more supplication.

Your god is an excuse for you to treat your fellow man with inhumanity. Man's inhumanity to man is somehow justified when one can find a rationalization within the pages of whatever dusty script one calls "holy."

"'Do not flatter your benefactor.' Say this in a church and it immediately clears the air of everything Christian." --F.W. Nietzsche, Die Fröliche Wissenschaft

Fish, Barrel, Smoking Gun.

Yeah, yeah, I know that Mythbusters already proved the myth about shooting fish in a barrel, but when the Rocky Mountain News passes along a fish like this, its time to lock and load.

Dobson: Obama distorting Bible, Constitution

Associated Press

COLORADO SPRINGS — As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

The criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization's headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family.

"Fruitcake interpretation"? Ha ha ha!! Hooo ho hoo!!! James Dobson, the simple-minded, two-bit, flim-flam man of Colorado Springs' Fuck the Family is complaining about someone using their interpretation of the Bible to push an agenda with which he doesn't agree.

I actually had to read the article twice to confirm that what I was reading was real. Yes, it's true, James Dobson is lecturing someone about abusing scripture to push an agenda.

Kettles and coal the world over are rejoicing at their newfound contemporaneous status.

And of course, there's this:

A McCain campaign staffer offered Dobson a meeting with McCain recently in Denver, Minnery said. Dobson declined because he prefers that candidates visit the Focus on the Family campus to learn more about the organization, Minnery said.

What the fuck? Does Dobson think he's the fucking Pope?

But the real money quote shows up a few paragraphs down in the article:

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.

"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

That shockwave you just felt was irony and hypocrisy colliding and then imploding. In other news, there is a rip in the space/time continuum, a black hole is developing between Jupiter and Saturn, hell is freezing over as we speak, and my cat just shacked up with a dog down the street.

Religious Branding?

When I argue about the evils of religion and the encroachment of baseless, religious dogmatism upon the public sphere of government activity, I will frequently hear the retort that I'm being an alarmist or overreacting. Of course, all that is necessary is to wait a little bit and the religious nuts will do that Voo-Doo that they do so well.

From the AP, a story that takes the idea of religious branding to a whole new level:

Report: Ohio teacher burned cross on kids' arms

MOUNT VERNON, Ohio - A public school teacher preached his Christian beliefs despite complaints by other teachers and administrators and used a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms, according to a report by independent investigators.

It seems that, no matter how clearly the line between church and state is drawn, there are some religious nuts that just don't understand that a public school classroom—a public school science classroom, no less—is no place for one's religious beliefs to take primacy over science.

And like most all religious nuts, this guy sucks in the very area in which he is supposed to excel:

A former superintendent, Jeff Maley, said he tried to find another position for Freshwater but couldn't because Freshwater was certified only in science, the report said.

Certified only in science? How did that happen?

Freshwater used a science tool known as a high-frequency generator to burn images of a cross on students' arms in December, the report said. Freshwater told investigators he simply was trying to demonstrate the device on several students and described the images as an "X," not a cross. But pictures show the images depict a cross, the report said.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mr. Freshwater.

Seriously though, if you are going to infuse your own religious beliefs into the science classroom, then by all means, have the personal and intellectual integrity to stand by them and defend your brand of insanity (pun intended). Few things are more disgusting than when one's "deeply held" convictions aren't even worth defending.

Recipe for Disaster

Ever go to the store and figure out what you're going to make for dinner as you wander down the aisle? For example, strolling through the butcher area you might see a leg of lamb, remember the fresh basil and mint you saw over in the produce aisle, and decide that tonight you'll have lamb with a Mediterranean rub.

Well, if you go get the Freepers, conspiracy theorists, and rabid Hillary supporters, put them all into a blender, put on "4" for about a minute, you might wind up with this:

Is Barack Obama Eligible to be President?

HAWAII is not a LEGALLY recognized STATE!

Huh? Don't tell the people of Hawaii that. Most of all, don't tell the people in Congress who are representing the state of Hawaii.

in 1961 Barack Hussein Obama would not have been considered a US Citizen at the time of his birth. Citizenship was passed down by the Father.

* blink * ... Huh?

Why is he running for President at this point in his career? Is it because he thought he could beat a woman? I dont get it — if he were so great, he could have waited his turn and done some apprenticeship, to prove his ability to the American people. I am mostly opposed to his inexperience.

There's an apprenticeship program to be president? Where do I sign up? Do I have to go to the union hall?

And then, of course, there is the usual screeching and kvetching about Obama's winning the Domocratic nomination:

Gallup: It's a Dead Heat

There are two kinds of Democrats on this site. Real, hardcore, generational, dems who put country before party on national ticket and vote dem down the line for state and local. Then there is the new democrats I call them Democrat In Name Only. DINOs have no idea what the real roots of the dem party are.

We are multi-generational, multi-education level, multi-cultural, and we know what it is to have to fight for something, anything in this world. We will fight for our party…if that means a resounding defeat of Obama…then so be it

DINOs know nothing of loyalty, courage, strenth, resilience, all the things we saw in our Hillary, and we also see in McCain.

You may now run from the room screaming ...

For the Believers . . .

A question:

How does one go about demonstrating that one religion is more "true" than another?

How does one prove the "truth" of one's religion without simultaneously doing it damage? By disproving one religion, one also disproves their own, no?

To be certain, such a demonstration would have to be supported by some kind of objective means, correct? Otherwise, it would be whatever you wanted it to be. And if you don't have an objective basis for proof, wouldn't that leave you open to a claim of some sort of relativism—the same kind of claim leveled at atheists who don't have the Judeo-Christian God and the Bible as their moral compass?

God's Fault?

Why does "God" always get the credit? Or does he?

Same-Sex Marriage and "Judicial Activism"

With the recent hue and cry about the California Supreme Court's ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, one would be inclined to believe that the foundations of American society are about to crumble, bringing the entirety of this nation with it. However unlikely this may be, it hasn't stopped social conservatives from invoking every sort of pseudo-argument and quasi-rationale around which they can latch their feeble intellect.

Judicial Activism

It's judicial activism.

Judicial activism, defined, is:

Generally, the definition of an "activist judge" is one who decides the outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, . . . as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution.

Schiavo v. Schiavo, D.C. Docket No. 05-00530-CV-T-27-TBM (11th Cir., 2005) (Birch, J., concurring).

Understood in the context of this issue, "judicial activism" is merely a euphemism for whiny, petulant tantrums thrown by those who didn't get their way.

The court's opinion makes extensive reference to the Calif. Constitutional guarantees at issue (pp. 48-49). The court also makes fairly extensive reference to Calif. case law which establishes a de facto right to marry. Where the U.S. Supreme Court has articulated privacy as an element of marriage (e.g., in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)), and the plaintiff's claims are in part based upon their right to privacy, it is the individual right to privacy that is ultimately at issue (1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments). The court also references other constitutional guarantees such as the right of association (1st Amendment), the right to enter into contracts (a core element of English Common Law), and the fundamental guarantees for which process is due ("Liberty," in this case).

Most notably, the Calif. Supreme Court finds the right to marry as inherent in the right of self-determination, personal autonomy, and individual liberty. Which is refreshing given the recent judicial trend that subjugates the individual to the will or needs of the greater good (however irrationally the "greater good" may be articulated).

Privacy as an Inherent Liberty

But the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy.

Privacy is a basic element of liberty. It's been understood to be an inherent part of liberty since our founding. The 1st Amendment guarantees us the privacy of our thoughts—our thoughts and our words are a private domain into which the government cannot enter. The 4th Amendment allows the people "to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects," which is about as succinct a statement of the embodiment of privacy as I've heard.

Privacy is the result of the court making things up from the "emanations" and "penumbras."

The oft-maligned "penumbras" and the "emanations from the penumbras" is a very real, if not murky area of the law. The issue arises specifically because of the 9th Amendment. Because the Founding Fathers realized that it would be disastrous to attempt an exhaustive iteration of the basic rights of liberty retained by the people, the realized that it was necessary to place what amounts to a caveat in the Bill of Rights that, by default, vests all liberty interests in the people.

The U.S. Constitution was the means to construct a minimal government and secure the maximum liberty to "we the people," with the possession of individual liberties retained by "we the people," not the government. Properly understood, the government must show why a right does not exist or may not be held by the people. Otherwise that right is inherent in our "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."

Aside for the mental meanderings of some busy-bodies and nosy types, I have yet to see any rational basis to justify the government invasion of the private sphere of who we decide to love and share the intimate parts of our lives. Marriage is a civil contract, pure and simple. And those who have the capacity to enter into a civil contract should be able to do so. Religious components of marriage are set by the various sects. And the religious sects are free to make whatever rules they choose.

The Canard of Unelected Judges

But judges are just unelected tyrants.

Judges personal decisions go against the will of the people.

For good or ill, we have a system of government that establishes a judiciary to check a legislature driven by the pure emotive will of the majority.

To the extent that one would posit the same-sex marriage ruling as simply the work of "unelected judges," the apparent conclusion is that the decision should only be made by one who is elected. In that case, please note that the California legislature voted twice to legalize same-sex marriage. That makes the argument about "unelected judges" a moot point. However, for those who are still opposed to California's institutionalizing of same-sex marriage, the decision has to then simply become "the will of the people" which—for good or ill—is merely mob rule. Just as a benevolent dictator is still a dictator, the rule of the mob (however benevolent) is still mob rule.

Congress can pass a law making it illegal to speak. But the judiciary can "interpret" the law and strike Congress' actions down as unconstitutional. Or for better illustration, Congress can pass a law stating that it is illegal for people of different races to marry. So long as Congress sits on its hand and does nothing, the law remains. So long as the will of Congress refuses to change the law, the law remains. The same goes for segregated schools. Had we waited for legislators to end segregation it would not be ended--in fact it still exists in Alabama where segregation laws are still on the book because legislators have not had the political will to repeal the law.

Yet a court can end an entire institution of injustice in one fell swoop.

For the record, I don't support mob rule in any fashion. I support the Rule of Law and the philosophical foundations that have given rise to our constitution and government, complete with an independent judiciary.

Slippery Slopes and Straw Men

Gay marriage will lead to people marrying their children or their pets.

I have actually been asked: "Do you think a father should be allowed to marry his daughter?"

It's an interesting question. But it conflates a number of issues and is akin to asking "have you stopped beating your wife?" The question conjures up images of a fatherly figure and his precious teenage daughter engaged in copulation, which makes just about anyone uncomfortable. However, the question is not as simple as that and the analysis of the answer changes depending on the circumstances of the daughter (age, mental capacity, etc.).

Should a father be allowed to marry his daughter? Generally no. But not for the reasons you would assume. The daughter, assuming she is underage, does not have a legal capacity to enter into a contract. Nor does an animal, which is why people can't marry their pets (hat tip to Sens. Santorum and Cornyn). Polygamy/polyandry are separate issues addressed in a separate context (Hefner and his Bunnies).

But back to the original question: Should a father be allowed to marry his daughter? As a simple contractual matter, assuming the daughter has the legal capacity to enter into a contract (over 18, mentally competent, no coercion), the answer is "yes." Entering into a contract does not entail engaging in sex, no matter how vehemently one would wish to impute that it does.

I'm not advocating father/daughter marriage at all. I don't even necessarily approve of it (the thought creeps me out a bit). But I would be hard pressed to make a case in opposition to it.

Should a father be allowed to have sex with his daughter? If the daughter is under the age of consent, is mentally incapable, or under duress or coercion (e.g., gun to her head) then the obvious answer is "no." But we already have laws that prohibit these actions (laws prohibiting sex with minors, laws prohibiting sex with the mentally deficient/incapacitated, laws against rape). Also, it's obviously not a good thing because of the implication of genetic defects and all. A marriage contract won't make father/daughter incest any more or less likely.

"Mr. Buchanan, please turn in your credentials at the door ..."

Wow.

Seriously. Wow.

Pat Buchanan has been pimping his new book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, and making some interesting arguments. From CNN's The Situation Room:

BUCHANAN: I’ve read and studied Hitler. One thing he did not want was war with the British Empire. He admired it. He respected it. He never wanted war with it. He wanted to make an ally of it. Had Chamberlain at the goading of Churchill not given a war guarantee to Poland, Britain would not have had to go to war on behalf of Poland. It’s because Britain declared on Germany that Germany came west. That’s the reason Germany had basically hostages of everybody in Western Europe from the —

BLITZER: Hitler had plans of exterminating the Jews in the ’30s, a lot earlier.

BUCHANAN: Wolf, I have not seen any plans of extermination. Hitler went genocidal after the invasion of Russia was broken down in Russia, after he declared war on the United States, and he was looking to defeat in the face. It was at that point that the Wannsee Conference was held, Wolf. As you know, that was in January of 1942.

BLITZER: What about all the anti-Semitic laws, all those Jews who were rounded up starting in the 30s in Germany?

BUCHANAN: Look, there’s no doubt Hitler was anti-Semitic from the time even before he wrote camp. What we’re talking about, when you mention the Holocaust, for heaven sakes, is genocide. You’re not talking about anti-Semitism. It was anti-Semitism in Poland in those years. There’s no doubt that Nuremburg laws were in 1935. They were dreadful. As a consequence, half the Jews had left Germany before November 1938. Another half fled after that. They were outside Germany with the curtain fell.

What Hitler did was a monstrous crime, Wolf. It was a war crime. Had there been no war, there would have been no holocaust in my judgment.

First, one point on which Buchanan is correct is that the decision to institutionalize the genocide of European Jews was not formally made until the Wannsee Conference. However, to assert that events would not have unfolded as they did, had Churchill not declared war on Germany is absurd. Systematic extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany was nor more avoidable than was the tortures inflicted on Jews during the Spanish Inquisition, or on supposed "witches" during the Salem witch trials.

German anti-Semitism finds much of its genesis in Martin Luther, particularly through his book, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (The Jews and Their Lies) and the evolution of German Lutheranism up through the mid-1800s. German composer Richard Wagner, a notable anti-Semite, found much support amongst his fellow Germans, not in spite of, but because of his anti-Semitism. By the turn of the century, anti-Semitism was fairly well-rooted in Germany and merely awaited the emergence of someone who could exploit that sentiment into all of its ugly potential. It is at this point that Adolph Hitler emerges onto the stage.

For Buchanan to state that genocide of the Jews was not contemplated until it was necessitated as a response to Britain's declaration of war against Germany is willful ignorance. Hitler, in a speech to the German Reichstag in Sep. 1935, following the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws, states that the Jewish question will only be ultimately addressed via a "final solution."^[1] And lest there be any ambiguity about what was meant by the "final solution," Hitler stated to the Chief Physician of the Reich that "the euthanasia problem would be taken up and solved" under the cloak of war.^[2] Another source states that Hitler spoke of euthanizing European Jews as early as 1931.^[3] Germans, particularly the German Reich, fully understood as early as 1935 that the "final solution" was the operative euphemism when discussing the extermination of the European Jews.

The enactment of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 only served to encourage and further German anti-Semitism. Leading up to 1939, it was commonplace for German authorities, the SchutzStaffel (SS), and the Wermacht to summarily execute Jews for the slightest of infractions. In 1933, a Jewish cemetery in Saarbrücken was vandalized with graffiti that declared the death of the Jews would end locals' misery.^[4]

Regardless, Neville Chamberlain did not sign on to the Sudetenland peace treaty ("The Munich Agreement") with Germany until October of 1938, less than a year before Hitler invaded Poland. As a result, Buchanan's claim that Hitler wasn't interested in the genocide of European Jews until after 1941 falls apart entirely. The Holocaust had nothing to do with Britain entering the was against Germany (that didn't happen until after Germany invaded Poland in 1939), and had nothing to do with Churchill's predecessor, Chamberlain. Hitler intended, well in advance of the Wannsee Conference (as early as 1931), to do what he could to exterminate the whole of European Jewry.

And if there is any remaining doubt about how idiotic Buchanan is, one need only look to the decline of the Reich through late 1944 and early 1945. Buchanan makes the claim that Hitler did not contemplate genocide of the Jews until after he knew defeat was inevitable following the U.S. declaring war on Germany, and the stalled offensive into the Soviet Union. He supports this claim by arguing that the Wannsee Conference took place in Jan. 1942. Indeed, it did take place in Jan. 1942, but it had originally been planned for early Dec. 1941, and was postponed following Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Soviet counteroffensive, both in early Dec. 1941.

Did Hitler know in Jan. of 1942—or in the summer of 1941—that defeat was inevitable? It's doubtful, at best. Up until Apr. 1945, Hitler still felt that the Germans would rise up and defeat the invaders of Germany. Memoirs from those in Hitler's bunker during the last days portray clearly that Hitler did not want to know the meaning of defeat and would not accept it under any terms.

And from reading through Buchanan's argumentation, I can conclude that he is no less delusional.

[Personal footnote: If Pat Buchanan has "studied Hitler" as much as he claims to have studied him, this book never should have been published. Which makes me curious as to what Buchanan's been studying.]

---

[1] N.H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, I. London, 1942, pp. 731-732.

[2] Goldhagen, D.J. (1996). Hitler's willing executioners. P. 162. New York: Vintage Books.

[3] Ibid. n93, p. 534.

[4] Ibid. p. 124.

Nietzsche and the Nazis

After reading some modern day butchering of Nietzsche's philosophy, most recently, that of Ravi Zacharias, and the impact upon history of Nietzsche's thought, I feel it is somewhat necessary to provide clarification on both.

Zacharias directly and obliquely relates Nietzsche's thinking to Hitler and Mussolini. And he does this not just once, but repeatedly, without offering the reader a single clarification of what really went on.

Rather than provide a lengthy dissertation on the evolution of Nietzsche's thought, both prior to and after his death, I'll try to sum things up with a few salient points:

1. Nietzsche was intellectually and morally opposed to anti-Semitism, and his opposition could not have been more clearly stated. It was the primary basis for his break with Richard Wagner and the source of much conflict with his sister, Elisabeth, who married an anti-Semite and attempted to establish an anti-Semitic colony in South America.

2. Nietzsche was opposed to nihilism because it was, primarily, a "no saying" philosophy that served to negate any positivistic aspect of existence.

3. Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth, took control and ownership of Nietzsche's manuscripts and notes following his breakdown in 1889. From that point on, until her death, she controlled utterly the presentation of Nietzsche's thought in the world.

4. Modern scholars and contemporaries of Nietzsche are all generally in agreement that his sister was utterly incapable of understanding his philosophy in any substantive fashion, and equally incapable of coalescing his notes and manuscripts into anything intelligible or remotely representative of her brother's thoughts.

5. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche's presentation of her brother's philosophy resulted in a demonstrably false and corrupted philosophy that is consistently at odds with what was actually written and espoused by her brother.

6. Hitler's adoption of Nietzsche's philosophy as the philosophy of German National Socialism (the Nazis) was made in response to the pleadings of Elisabeth.

The idealism of the Hitlerian Übermensch and the philosophy of power is a corruption of Nietzsche's thought that persists to this day. Readers with the slightest inclination to intellectual curiosity will readily find evidence throughout the whole of Nietzsche's works—both published and unpublished—that runs counter to the corruptions that have served as fodder for dissembling screeds such as we encounter from Zacharias. Yet Zacharias wholly misunderstands and misrepresents the idea of Nietzsche's Übermensch (the "Overman" or "Superman"), his philosophy of power, and Der Wille zur Macht (The Will to Power). This much is evident from reading passages where Zacharias attempts to address what he perceives to be shortcomings of Nietzschean philosophy. The issues themselves are far too complex, multi-layered, and interwoven with subtleties of thought to address here. It should be sufficient to say, however, that Zacharias has never undertaken a serious study of Nietzsche's thought, preferring instead to construct straw men from the Golems of Nietzsche's sister and attack long-refuted philosophical positions.

Can Man Live Without God?

"Can man live without God?" That's a question asked by Ravi Zacharias in his book by the same name. Unfortunately, Zacharias' book doesn't offer any substantive response beyond tortured logic that sounds more like a diatribe from Laura Ingraham than an intellectual response to atheism.

I seriously tried to read this book. However, it is intellectually impenetrable. It is not impenetrable because of the deep analysis of philosophical abstracts or scholarly reasoning—those facets are utterly lacking and were clearly evident before I even finished the introduction. The book is impenetrable because at nearly every turn where Zacharias has an opportunity to serve up scholarship, we get rank juvenalia instead.

For example, Zacharias provides repeated pleas to elevate the discussion beyond "frothy God-talk" and "religious verbiage, seeped in emotional drivel and bereft of reason." Recognizing that the current generation "longs to think again," Zacharias argues that we have an obligation to provide that opportunity lest we waste our intellect. In pursuit of this, he states that we must find "common ground" and whatever conclusions we make, those conclusions must meet "not only the intimations of the heart but the demands of the mind" and that our approach must include "arguments and attitudes that demonstrate not only intellect and candor but also tenacious honesty." Zacharias concludes, "[the] introduction of a knee-jerk emotional response, however passionately felt, must be set aside, for it has no validity in defending the truthfulness of propositions or systems."

This would be an admirable approach—if he had actually utilized it. Instead of answers that meet the demands of the mind and "intellectual and existential rigor," we are treated to so much ham-handed pseudo-intellectualism that by page 21, there isn't much need to read further.

P. xvi: I hope I have shown the many logical and social breaking points of antitheistic thinking, which is just too incoherent to be true . . . .

P. 10: The debate [on the existence of God] once again proved beyond any doubt that only ignorance or prejudice calls the theistic position uninformed or intellectually wanting. (emphasis added)

P. 17: I am thoroughly convinced that when the last chapter of humanity is written we will find that the implications of atheism, i.e., living without God, if consistently carried through, will have made life plainly unlivable within the limits of reason or even of common sense.

P. 20: The reality is, under close examination, that [atheism] is philosophically incoherent, morally bankrupt, and unable to logically or existentially support civilization.

Way to elevate the conversation, there, Mr. Zacharias. You spent your argument by page 20 and concluded that atheism is "morally bankrupt"—and all without presenting a single iota of argumentation beyond a bare claim.

P. xvii: The end of the first section leads to the logical conclusion that a philosophy of meaninglessness is an unavoidable consequence of the antitheistic starting point. This is readily admitted by antitheists, but it is cavalierly espoused by them as liberating. Can this really be so?

Actually, no. I know of no atheistic thinker who would agree that a "philosophy of meaninglessness" is the "unavoidable consequence" for a lack of belief in God. But it seems necessary to dishonestly put words into the mouths of others to simplify an argument into a straw man.

Additionally, Zacharias' attempt at a scholarly treatment of Nietzsche is not just still-born, but an abortion. He butchers history to link Nietzsche to the Nazis (a long-discredited and well documented falsehood), and then butchers Nietzsche's philosophy to present it in a completely unrecognizable form.

In the end, Zacharias identifies and relies upon the usual religious bogeymen (lawyers (p. xiii), universities/higher education (introduction), popular music (p. 3), Hollywood (p. 4), special-interest groups (p. 11), technology and the arts (p. 12)) to prop up his diatribes and offers little in the way actual debate or compelling argument. He uses inflammatory and polarizing language while at the same time calling for moderation in the debate. And most hypocritical of all, after castigating those who have had the discipline to understand and adhere to their intellect, logic, and critical thinking skills--to characterize them as "elites" or "experts" while brandishing the terms as insults--we find in the biographic blurb at the end that Zacharias' ancestors "came from the highest caste of the Hindu priesthood."